Hate-mongering? So we're not allowed to hate child rapists now? Because...damn. Sure, you can hate child rapists, just not on the basis of that site. For example it says "Someone who's overly friendly and goes out of his way to be helpful without asking for anything in return is suspicious.". That does nothing but makes everyone paranoid about genuinely nice people*; I think that's what the GP meant by "Hate-mongering". Their site makes people hate the wrong people.
*Maybe I was brought up strange, but I was always taught that this was the normal way to behave, and encounter people who also behave likewise all the time.
Sorry, I just see it as a new and better way to part dollars from suckers at a faster pace. A fool and his money are easily parted; doing it faster is called efficiency. Seriously, if someone* wants to bet their life savings on red then it's up to them.
*someone in this case means an adult of sound mind.
China does this a billion times a day at least, and no one cares about that, why should a little copyright violation in a small country bother anyone? Because this time it would be legal. If it happens, someone will set up a company in Antigua selling Pirates of the Caribbean, Shrek and other franchises much cheaper than Hollywood ever would or even could. We'll (via companies around the world outside the USA*) all buy our DVDs\CDs etc. from Antigua, and the **AA will lose a lot of money.
*the usa will probably make it illegal to import media from Antigua
On a side note - I am so glad to hear I'm not the only one with this problem. Found any solutions? I'm tired of getting fired for calling my bosses pathetic wastes of time and space. I solved it by getting an awesome boss who knows what she's talking about, thus insulating me from the madness of middle and upper management. Now if only I could find a way to insulate myself from the HR department, I'd be set.
I think what makes it feel different is that other departments tend to operate more on hard numbers than bullshit. You've never met anyone who works in HR, have you? Not once have I had a sane conversation with an HR drone.
Here you go
You need a TV Licence to use any television receiving equipment such as a TV set, set-top boxes, video or DVD recorders, computers or mobile phones to watch or record TV programmes as they are being shown on TV. Bold is mine
this is obviously all true because newspapers never lie and the Rupert Murdoch owned Times, couldn't possibly be bias against the BBC; a competitor to the Rupert Murdoch owned Sky TV.
It is incorrect logic to state that because bias may (or even can be proven to) exist that all statements by the biased party are necessarily wrong. It might not be logically correct, I wouldn't trust Rupert Murdoch, or any of his mouthpieces to tell me the time, let alone anything more important. Sometimes, you just have to go with your gut.
You're right, IIRC they're part of BBC worldwide, which is a self funding commercial entity. However, although the BBC can't fund them with our taxes, they don't have to licence BBC programmes, as they are a wholly owned subsidiary of the BBC. Am I making sense?
However the tone of your post seems to indicate that what the Beeb says is gospel truth as opposed to the Times? No, I just don't trust a thing that comes from a Murdoch owned rag like the Times. Indeed, I can't stand any fleet street papers, and refuse to buy them. I get my news from my local paper, the Internet and Private Eye.
I love the Beeb, I think it's an amazing institution and I believe that Murdoch is a baby-feasting spawn of Satan and a genuine threat to Democracy, BUT part of our open society is being able to provide a counterpoint which the Times is doing - just because they are owned by the aforementioned hellspawn please don't accuse them of lying. Don't accept everything the BBC says as perfect truth either.
The BBC does do a very good job - probably the best in the World (IMHO) of balanced reporting, certainly when compared to bile like Fox news (gak, "news" is certainly a misnomer there...) but there is also an obvious liberal bias. This may reflect that Britain is a reasonably liberal society.
Remember - "Question everything including what I am telling you now." I agree 100% with all the points you make.
From The Sunday Times
August 12, 2007 Yes, this is obviously all true because newspapers never lie and the Rupert Murdoch owned Times, couldn't possibly be bias against the BBC; a competitor to the Rupert Murdoch owned Sky TV.
but does that TV tax actually cover television programs distributed over the Internet? Yes, infact, if I didn't have a TV, but was to watch a BBC programme live on the web (note the live, if it's not broadcast simultaneously, it doesn't matter), I would technically be in breech of the law if I didn't have a TV licence.
The BBC owns channels in much of the english speaking world, so it doesn't need to sell the rights, it just lets BBC America (for example) broadcast BBC made programmes when it wants. How much comes from the rest of the world, I don't know.
The licence fee doesn't cover "TV only", the BBC makes almost all of it's money from the licence fee* and funds many TV and radio stations from it, as well as their web site. As A licence fee payer, if I've paid for it, I should have a right to use it.
*The BBC doesn't carry adverts, it makes some money from DVD sales, and sales of rights, but even the latter is limited, as most of it's shows are shown by BBC worldwide, not other companies.
That's why the good ol' NSA and GCHQ people set up ECHELON, and it's not just limited to the UK and USA, the other Countries countries that signed the UKUSATreaty are Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
I'm not usually one of the tin-foil hat brigade, but the radomes at Menwith hill must be being used for something.
Yes, because those militant Buddhists are everywhere
Actually, you do get some pretty militant Buddhists in Sri Lanka. And a few years ago there were, well, difficulties with Sikh militants in the Golden temple in Amritsar. I'm not here to criticise Sikhs or followers of the Buddha - I'm just pointing out that pretty much any cause attracts some militant folk, somewhere. For goodness sake, you get holy wars about the right source code editor, or the correct place to put curly brackets in C.
It's human nature!
Oh, I totally agree that the religions I mentioned have their problems, as you said, it's human nature. However it'd be a bit of a stretch (as the post I was replying to implied) to call Buddhism in general "ruthless", the majority of Buddhists, Jains etc. (especially Jains) are peaceful in the extreme. Sikhism and Hinduism have had more problems, but again to call them "ruthless" would IMO be wrong, yes there was the fiasco at the Golden temple, but by and large Hindus and Sikhs have now gotten over their differences. Of course there's still tension with Muslims, but this isn't the place to open that Pandora's box; even if it is the 60th anniversary of partition in India\Pakistan\Bangladesh.
Yes, because those militant Buddhists are everywhere. Add the Buddhists to Hindus, Jains and Sikhs, and you'll see that religions don't have to be "ruthless".
The trouble is with misinterpreting 2000+ year old religious texts and trying to expose the same distorted sense of morality upon everyone else. That depends on which religious text, I wouldn't mind having the misrepresented (as it has been) version of this one forced on society all that much...;p
for the humour impaired, yes, this is a joke, I object to religion, or indeed any ideology, being forced on anyone, despite being mildly (non-christian) religious myself.
It may be more accurate, but still not very, considering that it says that Latvia makes up 4% of web usage. You'd be surprised, there was a piece on the radio (BBC Radio 4) the other day about the high %age of internet connectivity in the Baltic states.
Do you happen to know why they ALL have three letters, no matter what country or nation they belong to? They don't, GCHQ is our (the UK) equivalent of the NSA. As you can see, it has four letters. /pedant
Then they are breaking Europian law (specifically IIRC The treaty of Rome); the good thing about the EU is it requires free movement of goods due to the single market.
Slashdot Mirror
*Maybe I was brought up strange, but I was always taught that this was the normal way to behave, and encounter people who also behave likewise all the time.
Did he ever try portable Tor? (I want to know weather to wast my time with it ;p )
Considering some of the programmers I've met, I'd say they already have...
;-)
I'm only joking, some of my best friends are code monkeys
*someone in this case means an adult of sound mind.
*the usa will probably make it illegal to import media from Antigua
The best one on that list is "Language", god forbid that a game uses this "Language" concept, people might be able to communicate with each other.
Who on earth are you with, Even O2 (the only people worse than t-mobile) don't charge for incoming texts.
You're right, IIRC they're part of BBC worldwide, which is a self funding commercial entity. However, although the BBC can't fund them with our taxes, they don't have to licence BBC programmes, as they are a wholly owned subsidiary of the BBC. Am I making sense?
The BBC does do a very good job - probably the best in the World (IMHO) of balanced reporting, certainly when compared to bile like Fox news (gak, "news" is certainly a misnomer there...) but there is also an obvious liberal bias. This may reflect that Britain is a reasonably liberal society.
Remember - "Question everything including what I am telling you now." I agree 100% with all the points you make.
From The Sunday Times
August 12, 2007
Yes, this is obviously all true because newspapers never lie and the Rupert Murdoch owned Times, couldn't possibly be bias against the BBC; a competitor to the Rupert Murdoch owned Sky TV.
The BBC owns channels in much of the english speaking world, so it doesn't need to sell the rights, it just lets BBC America (for example) broadcast BBC made programmes when it wants. How much comes from the rest of the world, I don't know.
The licence fee doesn't cover "TV only", the BBC makes almost all of it's money from the licence fee* and funds many TV and radio stations from it, as well as their web site. As A licence fee payer, if I've paid for it, I should have a right to use it.
*The BBC doesn't carry adverts, it makes some money from DVD sales, and sales of rights, but even the latter is limited, as most of it's shows are shown by BBC worldwide, not other companies.
That's why the good ol' NSA and GCHQ people set up ECHELON, and it's not just limited to the UK and USA, the other Countries countries that signed the UKUSATreaty are Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
I'm not usually one of the tin-foil hat brigade, but the radomes at Menwith hill must be being used for something.
That was World War 1, Hitler and the Nazis started World War 2 by invading Poland.
Actually, you do get some pretty militant Buddhists in Sri Lanka. And a few years ago there were, well, difficulties with Sikh militants in the Golden temple in Amritsar. I'm not here to criticise Sikhs or followers of the Buddha - I'm just pointing out that pretty much any cause attracts some militant folk, somewhere. For goodness sake, you get holy wars about the right source code editor, or the correct place to put curly brackets in C.
It's human nature!
Oh, I totally agree that the religions I mentioned have their problems, as you said, it's human nature. However it'd be a bit of a stretch (as the post I was replying to implied) to call Buddhism in general "ruthless", the majority of Buddhists, Jains etc. (especially Jains) are peaceful in the extreme.Sikhism and Hinduism have had more problems, but again to call them "ruthless" would IMO be wrong, yes there was the fiasco at the Golden temple, but by and large Hindus and Sikhs have now gotten over their differences. Of course there's still tension with Muslims, but this isn't the place to open that Pandora's box; even if it is the 60th anniversary of partition in India\Pakistan\Bangladesh.
Yes, because those militant Buddhists are everywhere. Add the Buddhists to Hindus, Jains and Sikhs, and you'll see that religions don't have to be "ruthless".
Disclaimer, I'm a mildly religious Hindu.
for the humour impaired, yes, this is a joke, I object to religion, or indeed any ideology, being forced on anyone, despite being mildly (non-christian) religious myself.
/pedant
Then they are breaking Europian law (specifically IIRC The treaty of Rome); the good thing about the EU is it requires free movement of goods due to the single market.